Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Istanbul watchmen: Gun-toting patrols replace kindly 'uncles' of past

Semi-official 'night eagles' pack firearms as they patrol Turkish city, in an upgrade to the whistles and batons of previous decades

The night eagles on their first patrol in Istanbul (screengrab)

Suraj Sharma-Tuesday 15 August 2017

ISTANBUL, Turkey – They have powers to stop and search, can question anyone "suspicious" and - in the most serious of circumstances - they are sanctioned by Istanbul's police chief to shoot and possibly kill.

But the night watchmen of Istanbul, who began patrols on Monday, are not police, nor are they trained to police standards. They are "night eagles", and their appearance on the streets, while welcomed by some, has sparked fears of growing state intimidation of the citizenry.

Do not hesitate to use your weapons

- Mustafa Caliskan, Istanbul police chief

The eagles are a modern take on old patrols last seen in the metropolis 28 years ago. But unlike their forebears, who walked the streets with a whistle and baton and were often called "uncle watchman", the new generation carry sidearms - which Istanbul's police chief has said they should not "hesitate to use".

The only similarity to the uncles of yore is the drab brown uniform.

And against a backdrop of a state of emergency and a post-coup crackdown on opponents of the ruling AKP party, many in Istanbul see the eagles as another step on the road to overarching state dominance. Some have even compared the eagles to the feared Basij militia of Iran.

While paid for by the government, the eagles do not undergo full police training, and their selection criteria is not as tough. They do, however, receive some theory and practical training - including special forces tactics on how to stop vehicles and how to use firearms.

The drab brown uniforms are a throwback, but the holsters are new (screengrab)

Dystopian visions

For Hatice, who did not want to give her full name for fear of reprisals, the eagles conjure a dystopian sense of deja vu.

"In the past, the watchmen were simple people from the neighbourhood and no one minded them," said the IT professional in her 40s.

"Everyone felt reassured as they went on their rounds blowing their whistles to let people know they were on the job keeping the area safe from burglars and other petty criminals.

Everyone felt reassured as they went on their rounds blowing their whistles

- Hatice, Istanbul resident

"But what is happening now is not reassuring at all. I think this is just a more intrusive manner of trying to spy on peoples' lifestyles and take illegal action against them. At best it is an attempt to intimidate people who are different from the AKP types," she said.

Others have said such patrols are unnecessary given the advance in technology since the 1990s.

Yucel Sayman, a prominent jurist and former chief of the Istanbul Bar Association, told MEE that their reintroduction was unconvincing from a social point of view.

"We live in an era dominated by technology. There are electronic surveillance cameras everywhere. The reintroduction of these guards doesn't make any sense in that way," he said. "The relative success or failure of this system in the past is also debatable."

From uncles to Big Brother?

Night watch systems have a long history in Turkey, existing in some shape or form since Ottoman times and primarily set up as a defence against burglars and other petty criminals.

The one Hatice remembers was abolished in 1991. Those watchmen were considered part of the neighbourhood furniture. And no one felt threatened by them because Turkey was not so polarised and people were not so viciously attacked for private choices, according to her.

The uncles were also portrayed as benevolent comical characters in Turkish cinema.

But thoughts on the new breed are not as positive.

To critics and detractors of the AKP, their appearance is part of moves against secularism - including changes to the school syllabus to remove entirely or drastically reduce mention of the republic's secular pillars and references to modern Turkey's founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

They also include an increase in physical and verbal assaults on women for their choice of clothing. Incidents involving the defacing of statues of Ataturk are also on the rise.

Others have suggested this move is part of a "quick fix" to manpower shortages due to the sacking of 8,000 police officers accused of links to Fethullah Gulen, the US-based preacher whom Turkish authorities accuse of orchestrating last year's coup attempt.

Who watches the watchmen?

Officials seem aware that the eagles' introduction might not be welcomed with open arms.

In a speech to the first batch of 386 watchmen, Istanbul's police chief, Mustafa Caliskan, warned them of the need to be on their best behaviour, and said the public would be observing them closely.

Pro-government television broadcast reports showing local traders expressing their pleasure at the patrols on their first night of work.

"Do not hesitate to use your weapons," said Caliskan. "Do not have any hesitation to make use of your legally granted rights and authority.

"If you are well-intentioned you will be able to carry out your duties without any problems. Check your manners, uniform, way of address very well. At this moment everyone will be watching you. They will be watching you closely."

"We want you to be deserving of the name night eagles. This name was chosen with careful thought. The start is very important.

"We will start very well. People will feel a difference once they start."

The watchmen will be accompanied by police during the initial stages of their deployment, and the scheme will be expanded nationwide after its Istanbul launch.

Moral quandary

But the reassurances have not soothed those who believe the eagles could easily become a copy of Iran's Basij militia - a volunteer force loyal only to the supreme leader, who subject citizens to beatings and intimidation for "moral" infractions.

Translation: Neighbourhood militias will start to operate and they will be called watchmen

Translation: What you call watchman, I call Basij. Understand?

"Look at society now," says Hatice. "Private security guards harass women in public parks for how they dress. Idiots attack woman on public transport, emboldened by the current leaders of the country."

"Do you think these neighbourhood guards are going to be angels? They will have the same mentality. This is yet one more step in the drive to take Turkey back to the dark ages."

What are your chances of getting into Oxbridge?

By Georgina Lee-15 AUG 2017

This Thursday will see thousands of students across the country receive their A-level or Higher results. Come September, half a million freshers will embark on three years of Pot Noodles and alcopops (and perhaps some studying in between).

Just a fraction of those – around 7,000 – will take places at Oxford or Cambridge, two of the UK’s most prestigious institutions.

Both universities have known for a long time that they have a diversity problem, and have taken steps to address it. But how far have they come? And what are your chances of getting in?
FactCheck takes a look at the stats.

The average Oxbridge applicant has a 1 in 5 chance of success.

Cambridge received 16,750 applications for the academic year starting in September 2016. They made 4,307 offers, of which 3,457 were accepted (“accepting” a place means that you got an offer and later, got the grades you need to take it up).

The latest figures from Oxford show the university received slightly more applications – around 18,300 – and accepted 3,200 undergraduates.

That means both universities receive around five applications for every place. But what happens when we break these figures down by ethnicity and school background?

If you’re a white UK applicant, you have a 1 in 4 chance of getting in – slightly better than the average student.

In 2015-16, Cambridge received just over 7,200 applications from white “home students” – i.e. UK residents. Of those, 2,037 took a place.

The most up-to-date data we have from Oxford on ethnicity is from 2013. It shows that of the 16,000 white applicants that year, 2,233 accepted places.

That means that the average white student applying to Oxbridge has a 1 in 4 chance of getting a place.

Around 1 in 8 black students get a place at Oxbridge – half the success rate of white applicants.

In 2013 – the latest year we know about – 218 black British students applied to Oxford, of whom 29 took places the following September.

“Black applicant” here means a student from the UK who identifies themselves as one of the following three categories: “Black or Black British – Caribbean”, “Black or Black British – African” or “Other Black background”.

The latest figures from Cambridge are from 2016. In that year, 302 black British students applied, of whom 39 were successful.

If we put the latest available stats from both universities together, we estimate that an average of 13 per cent – or around one in eight – black British applicants get a place at Oxbridge.

Overall, a white UK resident is twice as likely to get into Oxbridge as a black British student.

Other ethnic minorities do better. The success rate at Cambridge in 2016 for UK students of Chinese heritage is 33 per cent. People that describe themselves as “Asian or Asian British – Indian” also do better than the average applicant, with a 29.9 per cent success rate.

What about the school you went to?

Private schools

In 2016, just over 25 per cent of applicants from UK private schools got places at Oxford; at Cambridge, that figure was much higher at around 34 per cent.

On average, then, a private school student has a 28.7 per cent chance of getting into Oxbridge. That’s only slightly more than the average UK student.

State, comprehensive and grammar schools

Based on data from Oxford’s 2016 statistics, we estimate that the average state school student has a 19.6 per cent chance of getting in. Unfortunately, this data isn’t broken down further, so we can’t tell how many of those students are from comprehensive or grammar schools.

Cambridge does provide more detailed information. From this, we estimate that 21.1 per cent of comprehensive school students end up receiving and accepting offers.

Grammar school students do rather better at Cambridge, with a 32.8 per cent success rate for applicants.

Overall, then, it’s a mixed picture for schools. At both universities, private school students outperform state applicants.

But curiously, this data suggests that a grammar school student has a better chance of getting into Cambridge than a private school student has of getting into Oxford. The same could even be true at Oxford, although they don’t provide equivalent data.

The graph below shows another strange effect of this phenomenon. When we take an average position across the two universities, private school students appear to perform worse than grammar school students overall.

FactCheck verdict:

One in every five applicants to Oxbridge will take up a place. White applicants are twice as likely to get into Oxbridge as black students. Grammar school students do especially well at Cambridge. At both universities, private school applicants do better than those from state schools.

After Charlottesville, Trump retweets — then deletes — image of train running over CNN reporter

Two days after a woman was killed in Charlottesville amid clashes between white nationalists and counterprotesters, President Trump on Aug. 14 condemned racist groups such as the KKK, saying racism “has no place in America.” (Photo: Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)

By David Nakamura and Aaron C. Davis August 15 at 8:33 AM

President Trump's war with CNN went off the rails Tuesday morning after he retweeted an image of a Trump train running over a CNN reporter, then quickly deleted it after the meme sparked criticism as inappropriate just days after the Charlottesville violence.

Trump was in the middle of his usual morning tweetstorm when he sent the cartoon image -- posted by a supporter who added, “Nothing can stop the #TrumpTrain!!" -- to his nearly 36 million followers.

The president quickly deleted his handiwork but not before the original tweet had been retweeted hundreds of times and was captured on screen shots by journalists and activists.

A car plowed into crowds at a white nationalist gathering in Charlottesville on Aug. 12, killing one person and injuring 19 others. (Photo: Evelyn Hockstein/The Washington Post)

Trump's promotion of the image came three days after a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville turned into a violent clash between the supremacists and counterprotesters. Heather Heyer, 32, was killed and 19 others injured when a driver slammed his car into a crowd of counterprotesters. A 20-year old man, who has reportedly espoused neo-Nazi views, has been charged with second-degree murder in the case. Two police officers also died when their helicopter crashed.

[‘Very threatening’: Mother of Charlottesville suspect James A. Fields called 911 twice]

Trump did not immediately condemn the hate groups behind the “Unite the Right” rally, drawing criticism from Democrats and some Republicans. On Monday, the president attempted to make amends and denounced the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis by name, while calling white supremacists “repugnant to all that we hold dear as Americans.”

But even as he attempted to clarify his views, Trump seemed eager to blame the backlash on reporters, in particular CNN. As the president was wrapping up a photo op related to international trade Monday, CNN correspondent Jim Acosta asked him why he had waited so long to condemn the hate groups by name and why he had not answered questions from reporters.

“I like real news, not fake news,” Trump said. Pointing a finger toward Acosta, Trump added: “You are fake news.

On Aug. 14, President Trump defended his response to the violence in Charlottesville where white nationalists and counterprotesters fought. (Photo: Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)

If the president awoke Tuesday thinking his Twitter account would help him regain control of his political narrative, he was mistaken, however, as he also misfired in retweeting a man calling him a “fascist.

A user named Mike Holden was replying to a Fox News story that said Trump had told the network in an interview that he was considering issuing a presidential pardon for former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was found guilty of defying a judge's order to halt traffic patrols on suspected undocumented immigrants. “He's a fascist, so not unusual,” Holden wrote, only to find himself retweeted by the 45th president of the United States.

Holden has posted a rapid-fire series of tweets and retweets over the past days on British politics and the fallout from the violence in Charlottesville, including a retweet of a cartoon in the Guardian newspaper depicting the White House topped by a KKK-style pointed hood. His Twitter page also has various tributes to Bernard Kenney, a British man who attempted to subdue a far-right gunman who fatally shot British parliament member Jo Cox last year. Kenney, who was stabbed by the attacker Thomas Mair, died Monday.

In a telephone interview with The Washington Post, Holden described himself as a 53-year-old information technology worker who lives near Manchester, England, whose politics are left-wing but not radical. He was bracing for Trump's morning dose of tweets — which because of the five-hour time difference usually land around lunchtime for Holden.

Holden said he had walked away from his computer after his tweet and was shocked when he logged back in. “My Twitter went completely bananas,” he said. Holden, who said he was angered by Trump's response to the Charlottesville violence, hoped more people might question Trump's motives.

“It’s a strong term to use, but I wouldn’t apologize for it,” Holden said of the word “fascist.” “Why he retweeted it is beyond me, but maybe he got a taste of his own medicine.”

Holden called the Charlottesville rally a “fascist march.”

“For a president to still be at Bedminster playing golf and not come out and say more? From a large catalogue of things he’s done, it seemed among the worst,” he said.

Holden quickly set a screen shot of Trump's retweet as his Twitter background image and boasted about the endorsement — kind of — in his bio on the social media site.

“Officially Endorsed by the President of the United States,” he wrote. “I wish that were a good thing.”

Late Monday, Trump also retweeted a post from the Twitter account linked to right-wing provocateur Jack Posobiec, a Trump supporter known for fanning conspiracy theories, including the infamous “Pizzagate” rumors of child trafficking. Posobiec’s tweet — retweeted by Trump and not taken down — linked to a story from an ABC affiliate and read: “Meanwhile: 39 shootings in Chicago this weekend, 9 deaths. No national media outrage. Why is that?”

[Trump's retweet blitz includes "Pizzagate" conspiracy peddler]

Posobiec, a former Navy Reserve intelligence officer, had worked for right-wing website the Rebel. Posobiec gained national attention during “Pizzagate,” a conspiracy theory that claimed Hillary Clinton and her campaign chief harbored a child sex ring in a pizza restaurant in Washington. The Internet-fueled falsehood led a gunman in December to fire an assault-style rifle as he searched the pizzeria, Comet Ping Pong.

The Zionist-white supremacist alliance in Trump’s White House

Pro-Israel billionaire Sheldon Adelson, center, and his wife Miriam speak with Trump advisor Steve Bannon at the president’s inauguration on 20 January 2017.Brian SnyderReuters

Ali Abunimah-15 August 2017

A much-discussed article in The New York Times about pressure on President Donald Trump to fire his advisor Steve Bannon contains this intriguing sentence:

Mr. Bannon’s ability to hang on as Mr. Trump’s in-house populist is in part because of his connections to a handful of ultrarich political patrons, including Sheldon G. Adelson, the pro-Israel casino magnate who is based in Las Vegas.

The Zionist-white supremacist alliance in Trump’s White House.docx by Thavam on Scribd

Bangladesh: Bangabandhu – A Poet of Politics

Bangabandhu truly believed that he knew what was best for his people and the country. He was a high ranking planner and organiser, and succeeded through bold politicking where others relied on strength of the Pakistani military junta.

by Anwar A. Khan writes from Dhaka- Aug 15, 2017
Aug 15, 2017
( August 15, 2017, Dhaka, Sri Lanka Guardian) We recall with highest regards the stormy days of our life on the month of March, 1971. And 7th March, 1971 shall be considered a turning point of our history. Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman made a historic speech on this day at a mammoth public gathering at Suhrawardy Uddan, Dhaka. He made a clarion call to his people in a thunderous voice: “Build forts in each homestead. You must resist the Pakistani enemy with whatever you have in hand. Remember, we have given a lot of blood, a lot more blood we shall give if need be, but we shall liberate the people of this country, Insha Allah (i.e. if God blessed). The struggle this time is the struggle for our emancipation; the struggle this time is the struggle for independence.”

“Speech is power, speech is to persuade, to convert, to compel” has rightly said by Ralph Waldo Emerson. This historic speech of Bangabandhu reminds us how powerful a speech was; this one speech had united the whole Bengali nation to come into a single platform to give a befitting reply to the Pakistani military junta. Our glorious Liberation War then started to gain Bangladesh. Happily for Bangladesh, happily, we trust, for the whole human race of this country, we pursued a new and nobler course. We accomplished an armed rebellion which has no parallel in the annals of human society at that clarion call of Bangabandhu. Because of the above address, the international Newsweek magazine termed Bangabandhu as a ‘Poet of Politics’ in the cover story of its 5 April 1971 issue. There can be no doubt about where his heart was. He is Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Like Thomas Carlyle, he might have believed: “Every noble work is at first impossible.” But by his long standing struggles with the Pakistani rulers, he proved that impossible is the word which would not be found in his dictionary.

The Sheikh was a large, tall man and he looked very impressive with his long back-brushed hair and spectacles. He was intelligent and stubborn, but had very high political charisma. His political stature was legendary. His great charisma combined with political acumen made him the greatest of the different leaders of the Bangladesh Independence movement. The fiery revolutionary turned irascible statesman has had a profound effect on politics and his people during his time. A thorn in the side of Bengali leaders since the inception of Pakistani regime, he had been a beacon of resistance for their anti-Bengali stance.

While it is true that the Bangladesh revolution was the result of years of effort by many people, it is also true that without the singular charisma, vision and willpower of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, it probably would not have happened. Many around the world love him for his ability to thumb his nose at the mighty Pakistani rulers and get away with it. We must give Bangabandhu his due honour as one of the most remarkable men of the last century. He is remembered as a visionary who fought for his countrymen all through his life. He was a superior politician than anyone else during his time in the whole world. Still, Bangabandhu has remained a great leader…after his death and he will remain the same in the years to come. His martyrdom allowed others to pick up the fallen banner of freedom and independence. His influence on later fighters is considerable. Today, Bangabandhu’s remains lie in a monument at Tungipara where he was born.

One of the ugliest and most tragic incidents in the modern history of the world took place during our glorious Liberation War in 1971, when millions of our unarmed people were gunned down by Pakistan’s army and their local cruel cohorts. You can’t have a revolution without something to rebel against. The Pakistani rulers had kept an iron grip on power in this land of Bangladesh since 1947. But Bangabandhu stuck to his idealism throughout the struggle of independence of Bangladesh, breaking ties with other puppet politicians as they sold out. He was an implacable force and fought against the Pakistani rulers and their local accomplices with no compromise.

Bangabandhu truly believed that he knew what was best for his people and the country. He was a high ranking planner and organiser, and succeeded through bold politicking where others relied on strength of the Pakistani military junta. He is considered to be a symbol of rebellion, patriotism and idealism. A gifted fiery speaker and tireless political worker, he dedicated his life to making Bangladesh a better place and people responded by creating a cult of personality to his that exists to this day. The words of Herodotus “It is better by noble boldness to run the risk of being subject to half the evils we anticipate than to remain in cowardly listlessness for fear of what might happen“ is truly having relevance with Bangabandhu.

When we think of this golden son of this soil, it reminds us of the words of Egon Schiele : “All beautiful and noble qualities have been united in him; he shall be the fruit which will leave eternal vitality behind even after its decay. How great must be our joy, therefore, to have given birth of a great son to us.” When we think of our Bangabandhu, we find William E. Channing’s words as true :“ Politics … regarded as the study and pursuit of the true, enduring good of a community, as the application of great and unchangeable principles to public affairs, is a noble sphere of thought and action.”

We agree with Dwight D. Eisenhower when he says : “Politics is a profession; a serious, complicated and, in its true sense, a noble one.” Bangabandhu was such a politician of noble stature and high level of respect gained by impressive development or achievement. From the rising to the setting sun, may his presence come to our life everyday; every time to inspire us to build a golden Bangladesh in line with his spirits. “Better to die fighting for freedom then be a prisoner all the days of your life” was the principal motto of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman throughout his life as pointed out by Bob Marley.

Malcolm X Said : “Sometimes you have to pick the gun up to put the gun down” and maybe, the Sheikh has correctly assessed the same path and gave a clarion call to his people whom he loved so much in that direction. In 1971, our strategy was not only to confront the cruel Pakistani beasts and their local collaborators, but also to lay siege to it; to deprive it of oxygen; to shame it; to mock it with our art, our music, our literature, our stubbornness, our joy, our brilliance, our sheer relentlessness armed fights – and our ability to tell our own stories. Stories that are different from the ones we were once compelled to believe.

Bangabandhu’s historic Mar 7, 1971 speech is recognised as one of the world’s all-time best. It is correctly said Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s historic Mar 7, 1971 speech that effectively declared Bangladesh’s independence and it has been selected as one of the most rousing and inspirational wartime speeches in the last 2,500 years. The much-talked-about inspirational speech is considered by many to be one of the world’s best. He broke with established customs. A noted journalist and columnist has aptly said : “ Sheikh Mujibur Rahman became from rebel to founding father of Bangladesh.” Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is popularly known in Bangladesh as Bangabandhu (Friend of Bengal) and he was a Bengali politician and the founding leader of Bangladesh. He is widely revered in the country as the Father of the Nation.

The eyes of the world focused on Dhaka’s the-then Race Course Maidan that day as international media descended upon the-then East Pakistan amidst speculation that Sheikh Mujib would declare a unilateral declaration of independence from Pakistan. The speculation gained credibility as there were open calls by people in this soil to make the unilateral declaration. The speech was immensely successful in giving Bengalis a clear goal of their struggle, the goal of independence. It inspired millions across Bangladesh to get engaged in the freedom struggle. This historic address was a de facto declaration of Bangladesh’s independence. Infamous Lieutenant General A. A. K. Niazi, Commander of Pakistani troops said : “Mujib virtually became the ruler… His residence at 32 Dhanmondi became the presidency (from March 7)…the command of the central government began to be defied.” “Bangladesh had virtually come into being on 7 March 1971” as said by Pakistani Lieutenant General Kamal Matinuddin.

Bangabandhu’s 7 March, 1971 speech has been recognised as one of the world famous speeches in the book entitled: “We Shall Fight on the Beaches: The Speeches That Inspired History”, by Jacob F. Field, a noted Historian. It is truly a very powerful speech in the annuals of the world history. He was the most charismatic political personality the Bengali nation has ever produced. Poet and journalist Muhammad Nurul Huda wrote “Bangabandhu is incomparable because he was courageous, and it was his moral and physical courage combined that was unprecedented in the annals of our historic political struggle. Embracing Bangabandhu at the Algiers Non-Aligned Summit in 1973, Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz, known as Fidel Castro, is a Cuban politician and a revolutionary who commented, “I have not seen the Himalayas. But I have seen Sheikh Mujib. In personality and in courage, this man is the Himalayas. I have thus had the experience of witnessing the Himalayas.”

-The End-